Comments on: Abominable Science! Authors Interviewedhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and MoreMon, 12 Mar 2018 23:17:30 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4By: DWAhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91650
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:06:34 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91650I am going to be interested in seeing how in that many pages they come to the conclusion that a large number of eyewitnesses with no discernible reason to lie and with no significant indication that they were mistaken, in the end, don’t count for anything. I do have a significant problem with that.
]]>By: maslo63http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91649
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:00:51 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91649I found it quite an interesting read, mostly for the history of the bigfoot phenomena. I should note that the bigfoot chapter is only one of several. There are others on the yeti, Nessie, Mokele-Mbembe and sea serpents so even if the sasquatch chapter turns you off you might find something else worthwhile in the book. That said I have not finished it myself so am hesitant to give it a glowing review. I just know that from what I read, I like it so far. I must say if I didn’t have doubt in the existence of bigfoot before, I do now. A lot of my problems with the bigfoot controversy were addressed in this book.
]]>By: DWAhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91646
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:02:05 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91646…and it’s in the public library system, mine in fact; and I just requested it.

Huzzah for 21st-Century library tech.

(How I got where I am: curiosity, and willingness to consider any viewpoint. Up to the point where evidence contradicts it.)

As I said, my problem is with what I quoted, which just isn’t a fair representation of what’s going on but a rehash of skeptical shibboleths. When that’s the sample I’m getting…

Now as to Krantz:

Scientists are all human and they all make mistakes. Napier badly misjudged the Patterson film, in my opinion; but he considered the other evidence compelling. Krantz made his famous “no man built that broadly” comment, which Daegling used to make an unwarranted reference to one measurement of “broad.” (Daegling of course also missed a central point: it isn’t any one measurement that makes Patty anomalous, but where she would sit on the human spectrum on all of them.) He also didn’t seem to consider this animal as competent on two feet as humans are; the encounter literature would make one question that assessment. But his mistakes don’t render everything else he said, including his expert opinion on the animal’s existence, tossable.

And there is nothing in that paragraph you quoted that would give me pause, either. That’s just what I thought when I first heard that all 49 continental states recorded bigfoot sightings: oh great, UFOs. Kooks everywhere are seeing them. Wonderful. In fact, I forget why the hell I even decided to start reading them, that was such a turnoff. But for whatever reason, I did; and when I did I found out that, wherever one would consider habitat potentially great for a large omnivore with a similar diet, there were reports. Kooks don’t tend to have savant-level talent in wildlife biology. Then I started thinking about successful species, either because of omnivory or hunting strategy: bears, wolves, lions. Huge intercontinental ranges (the latter historically, if not presently). Krantz could be wrong on his take here, too, his mistake here being “Primates Are Tropical [maybe expressed as Primates Don’t Have Big Ranges], so when you postulate a range like this…” There are species of the same type of animal with big, and small, ranges everywhere one looks in the animal kingdom.

So my problem isn’t with what they bring to the table. My disappointment is that the paragraph from Prothero that got quoted sounds like…well, like they didn’t apply their credentials to the evidence.

My problem with the bigfoot-skeptic take is that everyone says the same thing, and that same thing can be easily brushed aside, as I did, with no impact whatsoever on what one thinks. I am still waiting for the first skeptic with a take on this that makes me doubt the evidence; and no amount of “somebody would have -x- by now” trumps evidence.

And it’s-all-fake is that’s-so-wrong.

I hope this is one of the few such books that makes it into the public library system. I’d like to read it; but I don’t want to invest good money in the same old skeptical (it isn’t) take any more than I want to buy a book written by a “habituator” who won’t give me any evidence for that money.

]]>By: maslo63http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91609
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:23:02 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91609Also while reading the interview I came across this…

“Cryptozoology author Loren Coleman tweeted that the book is “scholarly and balanced,” and said that cryptozoologists are treated fairly.”

So perhaps now the book is worth the serious attention of our members?

]]>By: maslo63http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91608
Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:15:14 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91608Norman-UK and DWA…what do you have to lose from reading this book? If you’re so both convinced by the evidence why not just check it out, just to see what it is all about? DWA won’t be surprised by this but I bought the book immediately when it was published, I’ve been waiting for it for a long time. I have not finished it but I have read the sasquatch portion and am now halfway through the yeti portion.

DWA, I’m sad that you’ll dismiss this entire book based on one interview quote. Donald Prothero is as much a top mind in his field as Jeff Meldrum is in his own, it would only serve you to read his take on this subject. Donald Prothero is not a knee-jerk skeptic. He is a man with a background in mammalian paleontology who’s lifelong interest in cryptozoology has led to a healthy skepticism. I’m perfectly willing to read both the pro and con position of the sasquatch argument. That is why I have a copy of Meldrum’s book as well as many of Loren Coleman’s. But I want to know the whole story and to do that you need to get a picture from both sides. I can’t take anyone seriously who won’t.

As for the bigfoot distribution issue that I have addressed myself. I’ll leave you with a quote from the book itself that borrows quotes from bigfoot hero Grover Krantz.

“Grozer Krantz staked his scientific career on the belief that Sasquatches exist, but the planetary extant of reports of Bigfoot-like creatures was a problem that gave him pause. He warned that “when it is suggested that a wild primate is found native to all continents, including Australia, then credibility drops sharply.” Even if we were to leave aside the plausibility of a global primate remaining undiscovered, Krantz knew that few animal species have anywhere near as wide a distribution: “Beyond a certain point, it can be argued that the more widespread a cryptozoological species is reported to be, the less likely it is that the creature exists at all.”

How could you not want to read that stuff? As I said, if your belief in bigfoot is as grounded as you say it is than what harm can come from reading it and maybe trashing it on an Amazon review? There are a lot of books on cryptids, few from skeptics. This is one worth reading.

Well, dangit, now you’re gonna make me deconstruct that whole paragraph of Swiss cheese I skimmed over in my last post, aren’t you. [sigh] OK….

“I would say that the odds are 99.999% against it.”

Whenever I see a sentence like that, the person employing it, in order to be justly accused of scientific method, better tell me where that number came from. And it came from…???

“Not only are all the supposed “evidences” of Bigfoot either hoaxes, fakes, blurry photographs, or questionable movie footage, with not a single piece of hard evidence (e.g., bones, fur, carcasses),…”

OK, two unforgivable scientific sins being committed here. First is the wholesale omission of classes of evidence; second is the constant bigfoot-skeptic Achilles’ heel: the confusion of evidence and proof.

Anecdotal evidence is first, voluminous, and second, extremely consistent. These are the only necessary earmarks to command serious scientific attention. Footprints aren’t anecdotal; they are hard forensic evidence, present on the ground. Experts in analyzing them vouch for the authenticity of sasquatch tracks and trackways. They show clear signs that a living foot, not an artificial stomper or shoe, made them. And the full range of evidence has been found, from prints and poop to hair and blood and anomalous bones (and skeletons) to nest-like structures identified to no known animal to vocalizations that have yet to be classified.

When it is not classified it is INCONCLUSIVE. The scientific thing to do is CONCLUDE what is causing it. Tossing off pet causes for which one can marshal no evidence cuts no ice. That canard “not a single piece of hard evidence” is not only contradicted by the evidence but a non sequitur; it simply says “not proven yet.” Proving? That is science’s job.

“…but there is LOTS of scientific evidence against their existence.”

No, actually, there is no such thing as scientific evidence against the existence of something. What “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” very precisely means. Never mind that there is loads of evidence of all kinds to be assessed.

“The most important is that they would have to have a large population with huge home ranges, not just a single individual. Yet the more people look, the less they find. ”

Well, flat wrong. But some people refuse to read about this or think about it properly.

And, as I said, it doubtless gets worse from there.

]]>By: DWAhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91463
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:10:58 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91463“Donald R. Prothero: I would say that the odds are 99.999% against it. Not only are all the supposed “evidences” of Bigfoot either hoaxes, fakes, blurry photographs, or questionable movie footage, with not a single piece of hard evidence (e.g., bones, fur, carcasses), but there is LOTS of scientific evidence against their existence. The most important is that they would have to have a large population with huge home ranges, not just a single individual. Yet the more people look, the less they find. ”

That entire paragraph is an execrable misrepresentation of the evidence. It likely gets worse. But I wouldn’t know; that was enough reading for me.

If what your responses have both been in sarcasm I give you credit. Amusing. Humor, especially droll sarcasm does not translate well over the internet.

If you are actually in earnest?

Hey, why let documented physical world information get in the way of what we wish were true?

]]>By: norman-ukhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/abominable-science-2/comment-page-1/#comment-91242
Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:21:41 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=69371#comment-91242The purpose of the book, despite appearances, seems to be to thoroughly debunk out of existence the favorite cryptids, and rigerous scholarship etc etc has been employed to that end. I suspect Heuvelmans would have been rather upset to have been compared to it. He was doubtless an open minded believer also.This did not prevent him being intelligent and sensible nor scientific, and which would have have been an aid to him in cornering the truth not an impediment !

Personally I have no rapport with disreputable individuals who meddle with cryptozoology, particularly bigfoot and give the subject a bad name and it is not difficult to find what is of interest and value in tv shows etc. without swallowing it all. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing where one sits at the feet of those who serve a scientific establishment rather than the truth. Because they have failed and are failing in establishing the truth in that amazing quest, the search for bigfoot.

Unfortunately the book seems to be a book written by sceptics for sceptics and getting the respect it does will make it easy for media outlets to shallowly refer to it as an authority and particularly with regard to bigfoot, prevent it getting the respect and assistance it should.